CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › Drive My Car (2021)

Drive My Car (2021)

Started by electriccanyon26 · · 👁 8 views · 70 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants electriccanyon26northerncrane4Dennis Martin6mistybisonMark White11Arthur Moore97Ashley Grant66Daniel Kelly57Lawrence Booth2Elizabeth Barrett6amberfox7Lisa Cox4dustyfalcon7Joshua Smith5goldenhound32Dennis Hall41shadowcanyon3Kenneth Allen
amberfox7 amberfox7 Member
30 messages
joined Sep 2022
#61 ·
Dennis Hall41 said:I'm here. Haven't watched it yet—but I will when the mood strikes. Sounds a bit less mindless than those Midwest types who think they're high-class just because they discovered expensive wine and "prestige" cinema.

"That thing he said..."? Cccc, kid, using pronouns to refer to someone else like that is just tacky; you should be thanking me for even talking to you. Unless, of course, you were making some subtle nod to Dennis Martin6's lecture on honorary suffixes.

That’s a bold thing to say—calling what might be the best piece of European arthouse cinema from the last thirty years just "average." It’s a heavy statement to make; you really have to watch your step with claims like that.
Dennis Hall41 Dennis Hall41 Active Member
55 messages
joined Jan 2018
#62 ·
I’ve got this one simple rule of thumb I live by—basically, whenever I’m dealing with something or someone that everyone seems to adore, it’s almost a guaranteed sign that the whole thing is just mediocre or totally worthless.

It’s even more obvious when people start pushing those high-and-mighty arguments about why you "shouldn't" have a different opinion. To me, that kind of rhetoric is usually nothing more than a stinking, desperate fear of authority and social trends.
Lisa Cox4 Lisa Cox4 Member
46 messages
joined Jul 2005
#63 ·
Dennis Martin6 said:If it were just the two of them, he'd never use 'oku-sama.' 😁
Japanese is what you call a high-context language—everything changes based on context and social hierarchy (age, gender, job, family, etc.). It’s all baked right into the grammar. Even though the dressing room setup is informal, the husband is older and holds a higher social standing than the young actor, so the guy uses a polite term for someone else's wife. That’s why the husband doesn't even blink—it’s totally standard for that kind of setup. Only Oto pipes up, probably just because he's full of himself.
If it were just Oto and the actor alone, things would be informal, but since they're in an intimate relationship, there's no hierarchy there. The language would reflect that and be extremely casual. The actor would call Oto something like 'kimi' or just 'Oto' (no suffix). But in the dressing room, he calls him 'oku-sama' and 'Oto-san.' If he accidentally used 'kimi' or 'Oto' in there, the husband would catch onto their little scheme immediately. 😁

Thanks for the expert breakdown, again. 🙂

...he (the Mladić) is just being polite and using "respectful" terms because he wants to show Kafuku respect, basically complimenting him and showing how much he admires his methods and all that. When Mladić mentions in his comment that he was kindly invited by his "wife," he uses that "oku-sama" expression, which, as you said, puts their relationship into this pretty traditional husband-wife context, and she reacts to it. Plus, maybe they hadn't fully hooked up yet, so the guy is acting all stiff and "official"—even so, they're an older couple than him, and he respects them professionally. What I mean is, regardless of the language, he isn't behaving any differently than some decent guy from the States would. 🙂

On the flip side, they're such a modern couple, so I think the reason "the husband doesn't react" to her remark is simply because it's not "weird" to him that she’d react that way.

Speaking of which—I actually stumbled upon this one review where the writer points out exactly that, specifically how in Japan "gestures" carry so much weight. He notes how an open, passionate kiss between a husband and wife carries heavy "meaning" (because Americans/people there "don't usually do that"), essentially highlighting just how much of a "modern couple" they really are.
amberfox7 amberfox7 Member
30 messages
joined Sep 2022
#64 ·
Dennis Hall41 said:I’ve got this one simple rule of thumb I live by—basically, whenever I’m dealing with something or someone that everyone seems to adore, it’s almost a guaranteed sign that the whole thing is just mediocre or totally worthless.

It’s even more obvious when people start pushing those high-and-mighty arguments about why you "shouldn't" have a different opinion. To me, that kind of rhetoric is usually nothing more than a stinking, desperate fear of authority and social trends.

You’re just not ready for this film yet. Maybe you will be by the time you're 70—just take your time driving your car. This is the work of a man whom even the harshest critics claimed created the only modern masterpiece (the Decalogue).

Blue is the kind of film every pretentious European arthouse director tries—and fails—to replicate as the pinnacle of their career. It has nothing to do with whether anyone "likes" him, or your claim that "everyone" does; it’s about admiring the sheer craft. By your logic, Lennon and Mozart would be considered mediocre too.
Dennis Martin6 Dennis Martin6 Active Member
55 messages
joined Dec 2005
#65 ·
Lisa Cox4 said:Thanks for the expert breakdown, again. 🙂

...he (the Mladić) is just being polite and using "respectful" terms because he wants to show Kafuku respect, basically complimenting him and showing how much he admires his methods and all that. When Mladić mentions in his comment that he was kindly invited by his "wife," he uses that "oku-sama" expression, which, as you said, puts their relationship into this pretty traditional husband-wife context, and she reacts to it. Plus, maybe they hadn't fully hooked up yet, so the guy is acting all stiff and "official"—even so, they're an older couple than him, and he respects them professionally. What I mean is, regardless of the language, he isn't behaving any differently than some decent guy from the States would. 🙂

On the flip side, they're such a modern couple, so I think the reason "the husband doesn't react" to her remark is simply because it's not "weird" to him that she’d react that way.

Speaking of which—I actually stumbled upon this one review where the writer points out exactly that, specifically how in Japan "gestures" carry so much weight. He notes how an open, passionate kiss between a husband and wife carries heavy "meaning" (because Americans/people there "don't usually do that"), essentially highlighting just how much of a "modern couple" they really are.

Look, even though "ma'am" isn't usually used to comment on someone's relationship like that—and people don't typically take it that way—I think the actor is just using it out of pure politeness. It’s basically just a generic way to refer to someone else's wife, and in this context, it fits perfectly. I brought up the etymology earlier because I was stuck thinking about what exactly might be getting under her skin, and honestly, that’s the real question here: why is she taking it so personally? I still say it’s the modern connotation of being a "middle-aged woman" that's bothering her, not whatever pre-modern meaning it had 600 years ago.

It’d be pretty interesting to get a third take on this—maybe from mistybison—but she already said she isn't down to sit through a three-hour movie. 😁

Lisa Cox4 said:Thanks for the expert breakdown, again. 🙂

...he (the Mladić) is just being polite and using "respectful" terms because he wants to show Kafuku respect, basically complimenting him and showing how much he admires his methods and all that. When Mladić mentions in his comment that he was kindly invited by his "wife," he uses that "oku-sama" expression, which, as you said, puts their relationship into this pretty traditional husband-wife context, and she reacts to it. Plus, maybe they hadn't fully hooked up yet, so the guy is acting all stiff and "official"—even so, they're an older couple than him, and he respects them professionally. What I mean is, regardless of the language, he isn't behaving any differently than some decent guy from the States would. 🙂

On the flip side, they're such a modern couple, so I think the reason "the husband doesn't react" to her remark is simply because it's not "weird" to him that she’d react that way.

Speaking of which—I actually stumbled upon this one review where the writer points out exactly that, specifically how in Japan "gestures" carry so much weight. He notes how an open, passionate kiss between a husband and wife carries heavy "meaning" (because Americans/people there "don't usually do that"), essentially highlighting just how much of a "modern couple" they really are.

Her husband doesn't even flinch—even when she hits him with the suggestion to sit down and talk once she’s finished changing. Dude has clearly mastered the art of knowing exactly when to shut up and when to stay out of it. 😁

Lisa Cox4 said:Thanks for the expert breakdown, again. 🙂

...he (the Mladić) is just being polite and using "respectful" terms because he wants to show Kafuku respect, basically complimenting him and showing how much he admires his methods and all that. When Mladić mentions in his comment that he was kindly invited by his "wife," he uses that "oku-sama" expression, which, as you said, puts their relationship into this pretty traditional husband-wife context, and she reacts to it. Plus, maybe they hadn't fully hooked up yet, so the guy is acting all stiff and "official"—even so, they're an older couple than him, and he respects them professionally. What I mean is, regardless of the language, he isn't behaving any differently than some decent guy from the States would. 🙂

On the flip side, they're such a modern couple, so I think the reason "the husband doesn't react" to her remark is simply because it's not "weird" to him that she’d react that way.

Speaking of which—I actually stumbled upon this one review where the writer points out exactly that, specifically how in Japan "gestures" carry so much weight. He notes how an open, passionate kiss between a husband and wife carries heavy "meaning" (because Americans/people there "don't usually do that"), essentially highlighting just how much of a "modern couple" they really are.

I don't know, this feels a bit weak to me. The only real difference is that people in Japan don't address each other by name in public nearly as much as we do here in the States. And that whole thing about skipping the bowing? It’s just part of being a "modern couple." Clearly, this person hasn't even seen Hamaguchi's groundbreaking film—that five-hour marathon *Happy Hour*—which follows four "modern" women and friends while one of them deals with a brutal divorce. Everyone is bowing constantly throughout the whole thing, and after a while, it starts feeling absolutely massive.
Dennis Hall41 Dennis Hall41 Active Member
55 messages
joined Jan 2018
#66 ·
amberfox7 said:You’re just not ready for this film yet. Maybe you will be by the time you're 70—just take your time driving your car. This is the work of a man whom even the harshest critics claimed created the only modern masterpiece (the Decalogue).

Blue is the kind of film every pretentious European arthouse director tries—and fails—to replicate as the pinnacle of their career. It has nothing to do with whether anyone "likes" him, or your claim that "everyone" does; it’s about admiring the sheer craft. By your logic, Lennon and Mozart would be considered mediocre too.

Bergman, Rohmer, and Antonioni are easily in my top 10 all-time favorites—so I highly doubt that "reaching maturity" is some huge factor when it comes to understanding Kieslowski.
shadowcanyon3 shadowcanyon3 Newcomer
6 messages
joined Jul 2011
#67 ·
Ashley Grant66 said:I thought the film was... lovely, honestly—really good. Everything eventually clicks into place and makes sense by the end, but I totally agree that it definitely could have been a bit shorter!
I honestly thought the second half was way better—once all the characters finally start clicking together, it really hits. I especially loved those table read scenes; seeing the behind-the-scenes process of putting a play together was so cool, especially since I used to do a bit of theater myself back in the day!
I honestly felt like the whole film was just—in the simplest terms possible—a celebration of storytelling itself. 😁Oto uses storytelling to process deep loss—it’s pretty moving. Even though these theater folks speak different languages, they all rely on this shared script as their main way to connect and express themselves. The lead character basically lives by interpreting everyone else's stories. There’s this incredibly powerful scene where a young actor tells the woman's story while they're in the car, and then—get this—he absolutely nails his rehearsal the next day. It’s like that storytelling actually cleared his head and helped him find himself within her words again. Then you have this reserved driver roll in, someone who isn't even part of the art world at all, only to share a life story that's more intense than anything he could have ever made up.

I find this stuff really fascinating—honestly, I could get lost in it for hours!

👍

Btw, the excuse for bringing in a driver is just nonsense—really lazy writing. Especially when you consider how a fancy theater with enough budget to treat its lead actor like a superstar would still hire some controversial guy who... well, you know, does questionable things to minors. I mean, he isn't exactly seen as a risk to the production or the theater's reputation. 😵
And let's not forget that the driver is, of course, unrefined and "tomboyish"—we're supposed to immediately realize she won't clash with the main guy and that she's got some heavy life story to deal with.


Introducing the driver isn't a mistake.
How else would you develop those scenes taking place in the car while she's driving?
Besides, why even bring up her being tomboyish and all that... if you were a man, people would accuse you of being a sexist for pushing the dumb theory that actors have to be conventionally attractive... why go there?
Furthermore, the car rides carry deeper symbolism; they are metaphors for something much larger... which is precisely why the director chose the title of the film.
shadowcanyon3 shadowcanyon3 Newcomer
6 messages
joined Jul 2011
#68 ·
northerncrane4 said:"Drive My Car". Japan

Mda. Honestly, it's borderline rude to run for three hours. Fine—if you can stomach the first two, there's a bit of a payoff in the third hour; it still drags through those monologue sequences, but sure, it carries some weight. But there is absolutely no reason for it to hit the three-hour mark—none at all. The pacing wouldn't feel any faster even if everything were condensed into two hours; it would still have that slow, deliberate crawl, so I can't help but complain about the runtime. Is there a psychological term for temporal abuse? 😁

I watched the film without any issues regarding that roughly 3-hour duration.
The film is excellent, engaging, original... to me, the length is exactly what it needs to be so that everything essential gets said, so that it feels like a cohesive whole where everything finally clicks into place and remains clear and logical.
What do you mean, "temporal abuse"??
shadowcanyon3 shadowcanyon3 Newcomer
6 messages
joined Jul 2011
#69 ·
Lisa Cox4 said:This totally knocked me out. 😬

And another thing, I spent the entire time feeling this weird sense of sleaziness toward him, so I ended up finding a review later that describes it perfectly, so I'll just drop a snippet of it here:

"I have this one issue with Haruki Murakami and film adaptations of his work. It's not that I have a problem with all his books and their screen versions—the silly, magical-realist ones are great. But when he writes meditatively, clearly from a personal and emotional perspective, his relationship with women creates this discomfort. Sure, he's sensitive, intellectual, progressive, and sexually positive, but he's obsessed with sex in a way that feels greasy and awkward. He always manages to mystify the fact that women communicate with his male characters through sex, and then takes such a mundane, everyday reality and turns it into some grand, divine experience for his male protagonists. This gives them these subtle, layered qualities, while the woman who 'awakened' him sexually remains nothing more than a nostalgic memory—a tool used to turn him into a real man."

That was exactly how I felt at the start of 'Drive My Car,' that highly acclaimed adaptation of a Haruki Murakami story directed by Ryusuke Hamaguchi, which isn't just competing for an Oscar for Best International Feature this year, but is also in the running for three other 'big' Oscars—for directing, adapted screenplay, and Best Picture. Right from those opening frames, I spotted that classic Murakami obsession, which is pretty much the obsession of all his male readers too. 'Here we are, naked and in a sexual frenzy, and now because sex is so transcendentally fantastic, my beautiful partner is going to grant me something special.' In this specific case, we're looking at a married couple where the wife, right after sex and still riding that post-orgasmic hormonal high, tells her husband these strange, interesting stories. She's a writer—she writes scripts for TV dramas and uses these stories for them—but the unexpected twist is that she doesn't remember these stories the next day, so he has to retell them to her, often adding his own commentary and suggestions.

I mean, seriously, thank God I didn't throw my dinner at the screen. Murakami & Hamaguchi, please, stop trying to intellectualize and mystify your sexism. It's like a woman can't be creative without having sex with her man, and then, being the inferior poor soul that she is, once his killer sexual magnetism wears off, she can't even remember her own creative outbursts and has to turn back to the source of all her creative power—her man. It's gross.


source

What kind of clichés about women and sex are these? What disgusting, sleazy nonsense!
Nobody is exploiting anyone; there is nothing sleazy about this!
Sex isn't even the point of the film... nor is it dominant?
There aren't even many sex scenes... sex is used only as much as necessary to develop the plot and show the issues in their relationships.
The film is actually about alienation within the main characters' relationship; sex is more of a tool the heroine "uses" to "say" something, rather than being used by "macho" men in the movie.

Why all this dissecting over sex when the film isn't chauvinistic, nor does it degrade or belittle women in any bad way?

The film is undeniably solid and gripping... easily one of the better pieces of true ART cinema I've seen in the last five or six years.
I'd give it at least an 8.
Ashley Grant66 Ashley Grant66 Member
25 messages
joined Nov 2015
#70 ·
shadowcanyon3 said:Introducing the driver isn't a mistake.
How else would you develop those scenes taking place in the car while she's driving?
Besides, why even bring up her being tomboyish and all that... if you were a man, people would accuse you of being a sexist for pushing the dumb theory that actors have to be conventionally attractive... why go there?
Furthermore, the car rides carry deeper symbolism; they are metaphors for something much larger... which is precisely why the director chose the title of the film.

I never said the female driver was unnecessary—I just thought the explanation for her being there felt a bit random. His glaucoma, which we talked about earlier, would actually be a totally solid reason. If I recall correctly, some past director caused an accident or something, so now they have this rule where directors aren't allowed to drive themselves. Fine, whatever (I mean, who cares about the cost of driving him back and forth for an hour every day since he picked the lodging in Tunguzia?), but then look at this: the lead actors don't have chauffeurs (we see them driving together later), and this theater—which is supposedly so big on its reputation—hires this problematic, controversial kid for the lead role, yet when it comes to paid drivers, they don't even ask for a basic dress code. Instead, she’s just there in a sweatshirt and sneakers looking like she's driving for Uber. It's not that I need to see pretty actors and high fashion, it's just that her look immediately (in a total cliché way) signals that she's going to be this introverted type meant for intellectual chats who won't be sexually attractive to the main character.
Don't go thinking I believe everyone wearing sweatshirts and sneakers is unattractive or socially awkward😁, it's more like—you realize a new important female character is entering the frame for the next two hours, and the second you see her, you basically know what her function will be. That's just how surface-level stereotypes work, and sometimes I actually enjoy it when a movie surprises me by playing with those tropes, making me stop and wonder why I even assumed what I assumed in the first place.

Btw, I liked the film too! I know I'm nitpicking here, but there were just these little things that kept pulling me out of the experience.😁
Kenneth Allen Kenneth Allen Newcomer
7 messages
joined Jun 2024
#71 ·
OI’m going to spend half a page laying out my initial impressions—though, honestly, a few weeks ago I accidentally deleted this (again). It’s sitting somewhere in my trash folder, but until I track it down, the day feels far too sluggish and frustrating for a first impression attempt, especially since most of you have probably already picked this thread apart anyway.

Think about how the Saab serves as a symbol of Scandinavia—which, in the global psyche, always felt like a class above Volvo. Even the way they treated their workers was viewed by foreign competitors as something out of a fairy tale, or perhaps just detached from reality entirely. They offered every conceivable benefit, even including reproductive breaks for employees focusing on starting families, or simply... well, let's call them intimacy breaks. It wasn't a joke.

I had the chance to visit Trollhattan back during the era of the Scania acquisition and the whole GM umbrella period, so I remember its unique character vividly; besides, its bodywork remains one of my absolute favorites in the entire automotive industry. The 900 features a specific catalog red color (Talladega), and the car looks impeccably clean in every single frame. Whether it's driving through rain or snow, it looks like it’s been professionally retouched for a promotional shoot before every shot. How could you possibly not start with the Saab when it’s essentially the star of the film—the unsung hero of the whole production?

You can't help but mention it when the vehicle isn't just a prop, but a central character, handled by someone with the meticulousness of a high-end collector, highlighting those tiny details that make it special. You can judge a person by how they treat their car, and here, every turning point in the narrative unfolds through the act of driving. I haven't really kept up with the Oscar ceremonies for quite a while now, but I heard that Hamaguchi might have even mentioned it in his speech? Because for Saab enthusiasts, this is the Saab film of the decade.

Is the mourning, the human connections, and—most importantly—the relationship with pain, enough of an artistic hook to prevent someone from feeling the runtime is too long? I don't know. For me, there is no such thing as a movie that is too long, provided I accept the premise for whatever reason, even if it's just superficial observation.

The scene that stayed with me most was the sight of smoking a cigarette through the open sunroof of the Saab, framed against a backdrop of deep bokeh.

I enjoyed the acting; I appreciated the moments of almost overly disciplined, controlled neatness in the staging—take, for instance, the conversation between Kafuku and Takatsuki inside the Saab, while he's still being eaten alive by the suspicion of whether he was merely the ex-wife's lover, and the palpable distance he maintains.

I also liked the intentional "ordinariness" of the driver, whose storytelling helps complete the journey toward the end.

What struck me most was the dinner where the hosts invite Kafuku, and he discovers his wife is a deaf-mute actress; I absorbed that scene and the dialogue with pure relish, replaying it in my mind several times. It was fascinating to see how the "driver's" simplicity evolves into a genuine interest in the hosts, transcending her own reserved nature. A deaf-mute actress is such a compelling concept to me.

The passing of the wife leaves behind more secrets than answers. The ending feels perhaps a bit too clever for the path it took; maybe adding another hour would have pushed a stronger desire for some kind of karmic cleansing.

...

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads